Читать книгу The Handy Military History Answer Book - Samuel Willard Crompton - Страница 10
ОглавлениеWhat was so different about that one city, located on the Tiber River?
Historians, ethnologists, and archaeologists have attempted to answer this question for centuries. The best they have come up with is that early Rome experienced some success, built upon it and that the intense challenge later presented by Hannibal of Carthage forged Rome into the greatest warrior-society the world has ever known.
The traditional date for Rome’s founding was in 753 B.C.E., and the Roman Republic, as distinguished from the Etruscan monarchy, commenced in 509 B.C.E. Rome, therefore, was a contemporary of Sparta and Athens, even though it received little attention in those early centuries.
Who did the Romans fight against in the early years of the republic?
Virtually all of their Italian neighbors. Rome possessed a genius for incorporation, for bringing other people into the fold, but lengthy wars took place beforehand. Rome fought and defeated the Etruscans, the Samnites, the Lamnites, and numerous other peoples. Though this was not planned, Rome moved north, south, and east, eventually taking over the entire Italian peninsula. The process required nearly two centuries of off-again, on-again warfare, and when it ended, the Romans were a much more militaristic people than before.
How close is Italy to the island of Sicily?
The “toe” of Italy’s “boot” is only three miles from the northeastern point of Sicily. It was, and is, natural for the Italians and Sicilians to trade and exchange ideas. In 264 B.C.E., Rome intervened on behalf of a Sicilian city seeking independence from the North African city-state of Carthage. This was the beginning of the so-called Punic Wars, which marked the rise of Rome from a medium-sized nation to establishing herself as a military superpower.
What and where was Carthage?
Carthage was a city-state rather like Rome, except that it was located on the North African coast (its ruins lie, today, under the city of Tunis). Carthage and Rome were about the same size—half a million people—and both were led by merchants who wanted control of the island of Sicily for their wares. This was the reason the First Punic War began, but, over time, the Punic Wars became a truly homicidal affair, with each city-state wishing to obliterate the other.
The First Punic War began with notable Roman successes on land, but also with Roman failures at sea. This is because the Carthaginians were a maritime people, who had far more experience in naval matters. Within a few years, however, Rome developed the corvus, a gangplank that came thundering down, embedding into the deck of the Carthaginian ship. Roman soldiers then charged across the bridge, fighting as if they were on land. In this type of man-on-man contest, the Romans nearly always won, thanks to their combination of patriotism and individual initiative.
How long did the First Punic War last?
The reason we might ask this question is because the First Punic War was a truly murderous conflict. It lasted twenty-four years, and many thousands of men died on both sides, including thousands of sailors who died in shipwrecks. The First Punic War ended when Carthage sued for peace. Rome imposed harsh terms that limited Carthage’s potential for future war, and Sicily became part of the Roman republic. A few years later, while Carthage was embroiled in war with its own mercenary army, Rome also seized the island of Sardinia. The former acquisition could be justified under the rules of war and conquest; the latter could not.
Who was Hamilcar Barca?
Hamilcar Barca was a young Carthaginian general during the First Punic War. When the war ended, he and his men descended from Mount Aetna, which had been their stronghold for several years. In the aftermath of the First Punic War, Hamilcar fought and defeated Carthage’s former mercenaries in a series of battles in North Africa. Distrusting the political leaders of his city-state, Hamilcar decided to establish a new Carthaginian colony in Spain. Tradition has it that he brought his nine-year-old son, Hannibal Barca, to a temple just before departure.
Hamilcar asked his son to swear—before all the gods—that he would never be a friend to Rome in any way. The nine-year-old did as he was asked; Hannibal’s words have often been changed to make it sound as though he swore to be Rome’s eternal enemy, while in fact he swore only never to be Rome’s friend. In either case, this particular nine-year-old would make good on his vow.
How long did it take for Hannibal to emerge as Carthage’s new military leader?
Hannibal learned at his father’s side, in Spain, but he also learned much from his brotherin-law Hasdrubal. When both were killed in the fighting against the native Iberians, Hannibal became the leader of the Barca family, for which Barcelona is named. He showed himself a capable young man, but few people expected him to turn into a military giant.
In 218 B.C.E., Hannibal laid siege to the city of Saguntum, in southeastern Spain. Saguntum asked Rome for protection, and the Roman republic sent envoys to Carthage, demanding that Hannibal cease and desist. Even if they wanted, the city fathers of Carthage could not control Hannibal, because he was too far away. They, therefore, dared Rome to do its worst, and the Second Punic War began.
Where did Hannibal get the idea to march his men—and elephants!—over the Alps?
It was an inspired decision, but there was also little choice. If Hannibal remained in Spain, he would be forced to fight an entirely defensive war, and there was a good chance that the mother city of Carthage would be overwhelmed. If, on the other hand, he could reach Italian soil, he could threaten Rome itself. However, since Rome controlled nine-tenths of the waterways, Hannibal, if he wanted to hit the Eternal City, had to go by land.
One of the most memorable chapters in the Punic Wars was when Hannibal of Carthage took elephants across land and water to attack the Romans. This 1878 illustration by Henri Mote shows the general crossing the Rhone River in southern France.
In 218 B.C.E., Hannibal brought about 40,000 men, and perhaps forty elephants, along the southern shore of the Mediterranean. His army forded, or even swam, across the Rhone River, in southern France, and then commenced the long climb through the Alps. The men and beasts climbed from about a hundred feet above sea level to almost 12,000 feet and kept going. Along the way, Hannibal recruited many Gallic tribesmen and incorporated them into his army.
What did the Romans think, and say, when Hannibal appeared?
Hannibal and his multiethnic army, composed of Greeks, Gauls, Spaniards, and Carthaginians, appeared in northern Italy during the spring of 217 B.C.E. The Romans were astonished he had made it so far, but they predicted his defeat. The First Punic War had clearly demonstrated Rome’s superiority in warfare on land.
Hannibal astonished the Romans, however, by winning the Battle of the Tinicus River. One Roman consul barely escaped with his life, and about 10,000 of the rank and file perished. Consul Publius Cornelius Scipio became the first of numerous Roman generals to attest to Hannibal’s military brilliance, and his eighteen-year-old son, Scipio junior, made the first of many notations about the skill of Hannibal’s army.
What was so different about Hannibal’s strategy?
First and foremost, Hannibal was a person of great charm, able to influence and persuade the various ethnic groups under his leadership. Second, Hannibal was one of the first of all generals—at least of those who we know—who planned an entire battle ahead of time. To be sure, he had to improvise at times, but on the whole, Hannibal had a well-designed battle plan on the morning of the event.
Third, Hannibal was likely the first military commander to exploit the technique of double envelopment. This meant creating an intentional weakness in the center of his infantry line and luring the enemy to charge straight ahead. Given that his North African and Spanish cavalry were superior to the Roman horsemen, Hannibal then brought his cavalry around the flanks and even into the back of his foe. This technique was certainly tricky and required excellent timing, but Hannibal pulled it off time and again.
What do we mean by “Fabian” tactics?
After suffering two crushing defeats, the Romans put all power, temporarily, in the hands of Quintus Fabius Maximus (c. 280–203 B.C.E.), giving him the official title of Dictator. Fabius chose not to meet Hannibal in the field; rather, he kept his forces secure in Rome and other Italian cities. Hannibal had the run of the countryside, but he lacked siege weapons, and the Romans were safe behind their walls.
When did the Romans go on the offensive?
By the spring of 216 B.C.E., the Roman public was weary of Fabian, or delaying, tactics. Fabius Maximus stepped down, and two new consuls raised the largest army Rome had ever seen: perhaps 85,000 men in all. Many were new recruits, but they had magnificent armor, and they looked far more impressive than their Punic foes. In the hot summer of 216 B.C.E., the two consuls brought their force south to encounter Hannibal in the province of Apulia (the modern-day tourist knows how hot the summer sun is in that area).
Hannibal planned yet another battle based on double envelopment. He had, perhaps, 55,000 men, but nearly all of them were battle-hardened, which could not be said of the Romans. On the morning of August 2, 216 B.C.E., Hannibal lured the Romans into an attack, and—as had happened so often in the past—they took the bait. Hannibal’s center seemed weak, and the Romans pressed forward, not realizing that the ground and landscape became narrower with each passing minute. When Hannibal’s cavalry sprang the trap, the Romans were jammed so tightly onto the corn field that they could not use their lances.
How great was Hannibal’s victory at Cannae?
It was one of the greatest victories ever achieved in the ancient world, and it was, quite likely, the single bloodiest day of that historical epoch. Roughly 48,000 Romans perished that day, compared to perhaps 10,000 of Hannibal’s force. All night long, Carthaginians searched the field, finding and hacking the gold rings off former Roman aristocrats’ hands (the rings were placed in baskets and shipped to Carthage as evidence of the remarkable victory). When morning came, Hannibal’s cavalry commander arrived to say that the victory was complete and that Hannibal would sup in the Roman Capitol five days hence (it actually would have taken two weeks to make that march).
Hannibal demurred, saying he lacked siege weapons and an understanding of Rome’s defenses. Muharbal, astonished, declared: “Truly, the gods do not give all their gifts to one man. You, Hannibal, know how to create a great victory, but not how to use it!”
Was Muharbal right?
Yes. Throughout his career, Hannibal had dared the odds and prevailed. A siege of Rome may have been the greatest risk of all, but this was clearly the right moment, and Hannibal should have seized it.
What happened to Hannibal’s invasion of Italy?
Hannibal had come a long way and achieved great things, but with each month that passed without a march on Rome, his reputation suffered. Rome was prostrate after the Battle of Cannae, but by the next spring, the government and people were breathing defiance once more. Hannibal laid siege to two or three southern Italian cities over the next few years, but with very few exceptions, the Italian allies proved loyal to Rome. Just as important, Carthage now had a new foe.
Publius Cornelius Scipio junior (236–184 B.C.E.) was son of the consul who fought Hannibal in 218 B.C.E. After his father’s death, Scipio became leader of the family and the new military hope of Rome. That he possessed a genius cannot be denied, but some of his methods were clearly based on Hannibal’s. Even so, many military commanders never learn this lesson: they fail to profit from watching their enemy.
Whom did Scipio defeat in Spain?
Over the next five years, Scipio met and defeated practically every Carthaginian commander in Spain. He captured the city of New Carthage and gained for Rome the silver and iron mines of the Iberian Peninsula.
Only one member of the Barca family—Hannibal’s younger brother Hasdrubal—escaped from Spain. Leading about 30,000 men, Hasdrubal imitated his brother by crossing the Alps and reaching the broad plains of northern Italy. Had he effected a junction with Hannibal, they would have had about 90,000 men. Just enough, perhaps, to bring Rome to its knees. Hasdrubal sent six mounted messengers by different routes, but all were captured by the Romans, who therefore learned of his approach. Hannibal, meanwhile, knew nothing.
Why do historians label the Battle of Metaurus as among the most decisive in history?
Knowing that Hannibal was still in southern Italy, a Roman consul hastened north with 7,000 picked men. He effected a junction with the army of the north just days before Hasdrubal approached. On the morning of the battle (in 207 B.C.E.), Hasdrubal heard two trumpets rather than one, meaning that he faced two Roman armies instead of one.
The battle was short and sweet (from the Romans’ point of view). The Romans had profited from the previous ten years’ experience. Though they had not yet adopted all the characteristics of what was later referred to as a “legion,” they were much closer than before. Ten thousand Carthaginians and their allies were killed, and another 10,000 taken prisoner. The first that Hannibal knew of this defeat was when a Roman horseman galloped near his camp and hurled the head of his brother over a wall. Tradition has it that Hannibal bowed his head, saying that at last he saw the destiny of Carthage.
Where did Scipio the Younger go after the Battle of Metaurus?
Scipio continued to win victories in Spain, and in 205 B.C.E., he received permission from the Senate to carry the war into Africa. His first campaign in North Africa was a desultory affair until he won the alliance of Massinissa, leader of a group of Numidian horsemen. These were the same African tribesmen who had been so instrumental in Hannibal’s earlier victories, and Scipio used the advantage to its maximum extent. Threatened by a possible siege, Carthage summoned Hannibal, and in 203 B.C.E., he had 40,000 of his veterans land on home soil.
Hannibal knew the situation was dangerous, even desperate. In 202 B.C.E., he marched southeast, toward where Scipio and his soldiers waited. Upon reaching his destination on a wind-swept plain called Zama, Hannibal asked for a peace conference. Neither he nor Scipio got anywhere in the discussion: it was apparent that only a major battle would settle the issue.
How did Scipio win the Battle of Zama?
In what way did he not? Early that morning, Hannibal rode to reconnoiter his enemy’s positions, and what he saw filled him with despair. Scipio had learned everything that Hannibal had to teach. But there was no remedy: the battle began around 10 A.M.
Hannibal began by launching a charge of elephants, but Scipio had trained his men to break into highly maneuverable cohorts which evaded the animals’ charge; one section of elephants even turned and crashed into a Carthaginian line. Scipio then advanced and cut his way through Hannibal’s first and second lines, only to meet the battle-hardened veterans of the Italian campaigns. This was when Hannibal should have launched a counterattack, but he was listless at Zama, not his usual self. When Scipio’s men regained their breath, they made the final attack, and after a hard battle, won.
After Scipio defeated the Carthaginians at the Battle of Zama, instead of wreaking revenge and destroying his opponents completely, he spared Carthage. This became known as the “Continence of Scipio,” which became the subject of numerous later artworks, such as this 1788 oil painting by Nicolas-Guy Brenet.
What happened to Hannibal?
He went into civilian life and seemed to make the adjustment, but in 196 B.C.E. Rome—unnerved by rumors—demanded that he be sent to Italy for trial. Instead, Hannibal escaped to the east and spent many years trying to stir up trouble for Rome. Most of his efforts failed, and in 183 B.C.E., he committed suicide—by biting into his ring which contained poison—rather than fall into Roman hands.
How complete was the Carthaginian defeat?
It was total. Perhaps 20,000 Carthaginians were killed at Zama, but the rest simply melted away. Hannibal galloped all the seventy-five miles to Carthage and told the city fathers to sue for peace. When Scipio and his army arrived, Carthage practically begged for terms.
Scipio exacted revenge for all of Rome’s difficulties, but he did not destroy Carthage. The city had to pay a large indemnity and surrender all but twenty of its warships. Carthage was also forbidden from waging war without Rome’s consent. The end of the Second Punic War left no doubt as to who was the number-one power in the Mediterranean world.
Who was Cato the Elder?
His full name was Marcus Porcius Cato (234–149 B.C.E.). He was a vigorous defender of traditional Roman values, which means that he was dead-set against the Greek influence in Roman life. Cato argued long and hard against the employment of Greek tutors, for example, saying they would bring about a decline in Roman virtues, especially military ones. It was toward Carthage, however, that Cato directed most of his anger.
Time and again, during a particular speech in the Roman Senate, Cato held aloft fresh figs, saying that they were still fresh because they had come from Carthage, only four days’ sail. He went on, each time, to say that for this reason he believed that Carthage must be destroyed! Cato kept alive a vengeful spirit toward the city-state, which had been thoroughly defeated already.
Why was the Third Punic War necessary?
It wasn’t. By all accounts, the Third Punic War (149–146 B.C.E.) was forced by Rome. When the Roman army first landed in North Africa, the Carthaginians tamely surrendered nearly all their weapons, including 2,000 catapults. But when they were told they would have to assist the Romans in the destruction of their city before being removed to the interior, the people of Carthage fought with all the energy of despair.
The Siege of Carthage lasted nearly three years, but the last ten days were, by far, the worst. The citadel finally fell, and the Romans sold nearly 100,000 people into slavery. They then sewed salt in the soil for miles around the city, intending to prevent—or at least discourage—anyone from ever settling there again. It is the height of irony that Rome herself would later settle some of its veterans in that region.
What did Scipio say as he watched the final destruction of Carthage?
Scipio Amelianus, a grandson of Scipio Africanus, wept quiet tears as he saw his men conquer the last ramparts, overwhelming the final Carthaginian defenders. The historian Polybius, who was standing next to him, asked why he cried, to which Scipio replied that he did so because he had realized that all cities—and civilizations, including his beloved Rome—would one day meet their doom.
How many casualties resulted from the three Punic Wars?
Some historians believe that Rome lost 400,000 men in the first and perhaps 150,000 in the second Punic War. Carthaginian losses are much more difficult to determine, but if they were comparable to the Romans, then it is possible that roughly one million people died. When we consider that later conflicts, including World Wars I and II, saw the use of much more effective weaponry, we can only shudder about the intensity of violence during the Punic Wars.
Historians often cheer for Rome, saying that its civilization was more advanced and that it has given us—her modern descendants—much more than Carthage ever could. We have to remember, however, that these words are written by the victors and their descendants. In truth, we know rather little about Carthaginian civilization, not least because it was so thoroughly destroyed.
How quickly did Rome rise to become the greatest power in the entire Mediterranean?
Rome’s progress was achingly slow during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., but things really picked up after the double conquest of Carthage and Corinth, both accomplished in 146 B.C.E. By that time, the Roman legion was essentially developed and Roman generals could rely on the smoothest-running military machine the world had ever seen.
What was so different about the legion?
It combined power with flexibility and ease of maneuver in a way that was truly unprecedented. The Macedonian phalanx, as we have seen, was incredibly powerful, but rather bulky and slow on the battlefield; the Romans developed the legion to bring out the best in speed as well as strength.
Roughly 6,000 men strong, a legion was composed of centuries—of one hundred men apiece—and maniples, which averaged about 300. Any one of these groups or sec-tions could swiftly change direction or go from offense to defense. The Roman legionnaire was highly alert to the trumpet calls that directed the action and to the centurion—the commander of the group of one hundred—who acted much like today’s master sergeant. If the legion had any weakness, it was in cavalry, which the Romans did not form into a cohesive group. Each legion had its separate section of cavalry, and the Romans often lost when a battle was fought strictly in terms of horsemen.
Napoleon famously declared that an army marches on its stomach.Was this true of the Romans?
They had an excellent commissary system and better delivery of supplies than any of their opponents; even so, the Romans sometimes lived off the land. They did so in a highly disciplined manner, however, with sections of each legion specifically detailed to the task. This means that looting—in the truly wild, undisciplined sense of the word—was a rarity.
Rome went one step beyond what Napoleon later prescribed, however: its men marched on their stomachs, but they also slept well because of the use of their shovels. Every legionnaire carried a shovel as part of his basic equipment, and each night on the march, the Romans dug a major trench around their perimeter. They adopted this practice after being surprised by foes at night, but once learned, the lesson of digging trenches was never forgotten. The typical Roman legionnaire was as skilled with the shovel as with the sword, and there were times when the former was just as important as the latter.
Were the Roman legions composed entirely of Italians?
In the first four centuries of the existence of the Roman Republic, this was the case. By about 100 B.C.E., however, Italy ran short of manpower. Rome, therefore, began the practice of recruiting in the provinces, and many of the soldiers who later accomplished great victories under the leadership of Julius Caesar were Spaniards, Sicilians, and even North Africans and Greeks by descent.
Rome was so skilled in making citizenship a desirable thing that many, if not most, legionnaires from foreign countries later settled in Italy, greatly benefitting the Roman motherland. Some retired legionnaires rose to political positions and thereby added another aspect of value to the Roman state.
It sounds as if everything was just about perfect. Did the Romans ever lose?
They lost plenty of battles and skirmishes along the way, but they nearly always won when it counted the most. By about 60 B.C.E., there was a sense of inevitability about Roman triumphs. Of course, it helped that Rome was led during this time by its greatest military genius, Julius Caesar.
Born in Rome in 100 B.C.E., Caesar was the epitome of the high-born Roman aristocrat, and by the age of thirty-nine he had everything—wealth, fame, and family—except military glory. His rivals in the Roman leadership scoffed, believing that Caesar was too old to launch a military career, but he quickly showed they were mistaken.
Who formed the First Triumvirate?
In 61 B.C.E., Gaius Pompey (104–147 B.C.E.), Marcus Licinius Crassus (112–55 B.C.E.), and Julius Caesar came together to form the First Triumvirate (“rule of three men”). The Senate remained in place, with vigorous debates being held, but most people knew that the major decisions were now made behind the scenes by the Three Triumvirs.
How did Caesar commence his rise to military fame?
He asked his two fellow Triumvirs for a five-year appointment in the province of Gaul. Pompey and Crassus were both suspicious: to them it seemed that Caesar was asking for too much. But the more they deliberated on it, the more Pompey and Crassus became convinced that it would be a good thing to have Caesar somewhere other than the capital city, if only because he had become too popular with the masses. They agreed to send Caesar north on a five-year-appointment.
This did not mean Caesar’s path would be easy, not by any means. Rome claimed all of Gaul, but in 61 B.C.E. it controlled only the southernmost part. The Romans called it simply The Province, and that name has stuck to modern times: we call it Provence.
Marcus Licinius Crassus was a Roman general who defeated the slave rebellion led by Spartacus and then joined Gaius Pompey and Julius Caesar to form the First Triumvirate.
Whom did Caesar fight?
Immediately upon arriving in The Province—which equates to modern-day Provence in southern France—Caesar faced a huge migration movement by the Helvetti tribe. They lived in central Switzerland but were on the move toward The Province. Caesar challenged them, saying that Rome controlled who moved through these lands. Caesar’s written report declares that 280,000 Helvetians came against him and that only one-third of that number returned. He forced them into mountainside skirmishes and battles along rivers whose banks were swollen from the spring rains. He outmaneuvered them, beat them consistently, and when all the strategic moves were accomplished, he left the field to his subordinate generals, knowing that the high efficiency of the Roman legion would prevail. He was correct.
After the Helvetian threat was neutralized, Caesar faced an invasion by Germanic tribes from the east side of the River Rhine. Caesar consistently beat the Germans in battle, employing the same mixture of tactics that worked against the Swiss tribes.
How about the Gauls themselves? Did they welcome Roman rule?
Far from it. From the little documentary evidence that survives, we gather that the Gauls—who proudly proclaimed themselves Celts—detested the rectangular, square-shaped organization of the Romans and that the highest compliment one Gaul could pay another was to declare, “I greet you as a free person.”
Gaul was still semi-independent from Rome, but Caesar’s numerous battles and campaigns threatened its autonomy. Caesar negotiated with, and sometimes bribed, leading Gallic chieftains, allowing him to pit one against another and to keep Rome’s interests in the advance. It was through this type of clever diplomacy that Caesar was able to bring legions through sections of Gaul on his way north, where he fought the Belgae tribes, ancestors to modern-day Dutch and Belgian peoples.
What happened to the Belgae and the Britons?
The Belgae were subdued and nearly destroyed in an enormous campaign that lasted two years. Caesar claimed to have killed or sold into slavery a total of 800,000 Belgae, but this figures seems inflated: at that rate, he would have depopulated most of Northern Europe. But there is no doubt he succeeded or that he then crossed the English Channel to fight the tribes of Britain.
The British tribes—who were known for painting their faces blue before going into battle—had lived completely free from outside influence for hundreds of years, and they fought fiercely. They met Caesar’s men on the beaches near the mouth of the River Thames and fought them all along the southern coast. Roman discipline, as usual, prevailed, but even Caesar could see that the time was not right for the complete conquest of Britain. He left that for a later date, and it was his collateral relative Claudius who carried out the conquest, eighty years later.
When was the first bridge across the River Rhine built?
There may have been some makeshift bridges earlier in human history, but the first solid bridge of which we have certain knowledge was built by Roman engineers in 55 B.C.E. across the River Rhine. Caesar marched three legions across this bridge and defeated the Germans in a number of skirmishes without engaging in a major battle. Withdrawing to the west side of the Rhine, he ordered the bridge destroyed. He rightly believed that he had chastised the Germans; what he did not know was that their descendants would later return as one of the barbarian groups that helped bring down Rome.
How good a general had Caesar become by this point?
Even if his career had ended in 55 B.C.E., we would recognize Caesar as one of the greats, both for his decisiveness and speed. Once Caesar made a decision, he never wavered but pursued his goal to the utmost, never failing to follow up a victory. But his greatest days were still to come.
In 53 B.C.E., the Gauls united behind one leader, Vercingetorix, chief of the Arvernii. He seems to have been a person of great personal magnetism, as well as a careful strategist, who correctly decided that the only way to beat the Romans was by denying satisfaction to their stomachs. In 53–52 B.C.E., Vercingetorix ordered the burning of one Gallic town after another to prevent the Romans from getting food, and after six months of this strategy, the Romans were on the brink of mutiny. Luck favored Caesar, however, when one town—Avaricum—was spared, and the Romans captured it. Flush with success and new food supplies, the Romans continued the campaign. Even though Vercingetorix achieved a signal success at the Siege of Gergovia—where the Romans lost 700 men—he made the mistake of retreating to another hilltop-fortified city—Alesia—where he was cornered by Caesar.
How did Caesar manage the conquest of Alesia?
The city, which was unearthed by French archaeologists in the 1860s, was built on a sloping hillside and possessed deep wells: there was no way it would fall under ordinary circumstances. Caesar, however, committed to the siege and had his men dig a series of walls which wrapped eleven miles around Alesia, completely boxing in the Gauls. When he learned that an enormous relief army was being summoned from all across Gaul, Caesar had his men build a second set of ditches and walls: this one was thirteen miles around. When the relief army appeared, its men attacked the outer walls, while Vercing etorix and his garrison attacked the inner ring. Numerous times a breakthrough seemed possible, but Caesar kept bringing reinforcements to just the right place, and after a two-day battle everyone was exhausted. The relief army melted away, and Vercingetorix came down the hill to surrender in person (Caesar kept him a prisoner but had him beheaded during a major celebration in Rome, three years later).
A bronze statue of Julius Caesar stands in Rimini, Italy. Many statues and busts of the great Roman leader may be found throughout Europe.
How great—and how ruthless—was Caesar?
He was both great and ruthless to the same very high degree. Caesar could be merci-ful, but only when it was to his advantage. He employed bribery and flattery as effectively as threats and intimidation. He was, quite simply, one of the great talents of human history, and his Gallic Commentaries, the book he wrote about his campaigns in Gaul, reveals a truly masterful mind through writing that is sharp, fresh, and clear.
What does it mean to “cross the Rubicon”?
In 49 B.C.E., Caesar and his battle-hardened legions were on the north bank of the River Rubicon, in northern Italy. To cross that river was to break the law, and Caesar knew this quite well. He had just received letters from the Roman Senate, telling him to lay down his command and return to Rome, where he could have possibly been put on trial.
Caesar pondered the matter for a day or so and then ordered his men to cross the Rubicon. He told his generals that “the die is cast,” and—ever since—we have employed that expression, as well as the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” to refer to a major life decision, one from which there is no turning back.
Why was the Roman Civil War fought in Spain and Greece, rather than Italy?
It happened by chance, because Caesar’s foe, Gaius Pompey, fled to Greece, while two of his sons, with their armies, went to Spain. This formed a precedent, however, and for hundreds of years to come, Romans showed a marked tendency to fight civil wars in the provinces rather than the Italian homeland.
Caesar followed Pompey to Greece, and after months of maneuvering, the two armies clashed at the Battle of Pharsalus. Pompey had perhaps twice as many men (55,000) as Caesar, but his troops were not as battle tested. In one of the worst Roman-on-Roman collisions, Caesar prevailed, in part because he ordered his men to thrust their javelins at the faces of Pompey’s cavalrymen rather than the horses. A Roman aristocrat could bear many difficulties and indignities, Caesar declared, but he was much too proud of his face to risk injury to it. Following his defeat, Pompey fled the field, and thousands of his men went over to Caesar.
How did Caesar wind up in control of Egypt?
In 47 B.C.E., Egypt was one of the few parts of the Mediterranean world that still was independent of Rome. Its ruler, King Ptolemy XI, was wedded to his sister Queen Cleopatra. Soon after his arrival at the city of Alexandria—named for the great Macedonian conqueror—Caesar was handed a basket in which he found the head of his Roman rival Pompey. The Egyptians had done this in order to please Caesar and to persuade him to leave Egypt alone.
Caesar, however, allied with Cleopatra to fight against King Ptolemy. Though the fighting was touch and go, Caesar prevailed as usual, and King Ptolemy and many of his men died in the Battle of the Nile. Caesar then chose to remain in Egypt for several months, during which time Cleopatra became his lover as well as his political ally. By the time Caesar departed, Cleopatra was pregnant with his son, and Egypt had moved at least halfway into the Roman camp.
What happened to all the rest of Caesar’s foes: Pompey’s sons, the king of Numidia, the Spanish tribesmen?
They were all beaten. Caesar came close to defeat only once, in southern Spain, and he recovered in time. By the time he returned to Rome in 46 B.C.E., he was the world conqueror, and everyone realized it.
Caesar had proved himself a fine administrator as well as a great general. He established new overseas colonies for his veterans, altered the Roman calendar to the one that was the basis for the Western world until the 1580s, and seemed on the verge of making himself king or emperor. He, very likely, knew that there was no need to do so: he already possessed more power than any person prior to his time. His political foes, however, insisted that he was on the cusp of destroying the Roman Republic and creating a new Roman Empire. They, therefore, assassinated him on March 15, 44 B.C.E.
Who were the candidates to succeed Caesar as leader of the Roman world?
At the moment of Caesar’s death, it was obvious that there were only two men who could possibly succeed him. Marc Antony was his best subordinate general, and Octavian was both his nephew and his adopted son. One of these two men would clearly be the new leader.
Which of these two possessed the initial advantage?
Because he was so well known to the legionnaires, Marc Antony had the advantage at the beginning of the rivalry. Over time, however, Antony became identified with the concerns of the Eastern Mediterranean, and when he joined forces with Cleopatra (she bore him several children), Antony sealed his doom. Octavian was very young—only eighteen when Julius Caesar died—but he proved an able statesman and was successful in portraying Antony as a fallen man to the Roman public. When the two clashed in battle in 31 B.C.E., Octavian had most of the advantage.
How decisive was the Battle of Actium?
Fought in and just outside the harbor of Actium on the west coast of Greece, this was one of the most significant battles of that century. Both sides entered with roughly 175 galleys and transport vessels; by late afternoon, Antony and Cleopatra had lost all but twenty. Roman discipline was one reason for Octavian’s victory; the rest of the cause can be assigned to his admiral, Agrippa.
The 1754 painting Le repas de Cléoptre et de Marc-Antoine by Charles-Joseph Natoire has Marc Antony and Cleopatra dining in luxury. Lovers and political allies, Antony and Cleopatra would lose the battle against Octavian and, consequently, both committed suicide.
Antony and Cleopatra fled to Egypt, which had become something of a haven for runaway Romans. Octavian took his time in pursuit, but the day he landed in Egypt, Marc Antony committed suicide. Cleopatra stayed alive long enough to look upon Octavian’s face; he gave her the stark choice of suicide or execution (she chose to have a servant bring a poisonous snake to her chamber). Actium was not terribly exciting in its presentation, but it was an extremely important battle. Rome had—by virtue of Octavian’s victory—completely eclipsed Alexandria, and from that point on Rome was the city of the Mediterranean world, with no rival or even close second.
How did Augustus reorganize the legions?
In 27 B.C.E., four years after winning at Actium, Octavian took the new name of Augustus, meaning the revered one. He never put a crown on his head or called himself king or emperor, but those symbols were unnecessary: he was the emperor, whether anyone said so or not.
Augustus was primarily a political leader rather than a military one, but he saw the need to reorganize the legions. He limited, or capped, their number at thirty and worked to bring all of them up to full strength: until his reign, many legions numbered between 4,000 and 5,000 rather than the expected 6,000. Augustus saw, too, that the frontiers of the empire needed defining, and he worked many years to create a defensible line of borders. He made only one major military mistake, but it haunted him until the end of his days.
What did Augustus mean by “Quintus Varrus, give me back my legions”?
In 9 C.E., Augustus sent General Varrus with three legions across the Rhine to chastise the Germanic tribes. Varrus knew the way quite well, and he and his men did fine for the first fifty miles or so, but when they entered the Teutoburger Forest they lost their way and were ambushed by Germans. A three-day battle ended in the destruction of all three legions. Varrus died, as did the great majority of his officers. For Augustus, this was the greatest disaster of his reign and a distressing indication that the empire needed to remain on the defensive on its northern frontiers.
What was the military situation like at the time of Augustus’ death?
Much as he desired, the Roman Empire had taken on the configuration that would last for centuries. Rome and the towns of northern Italy were the heart of the empire, from which the legions were mobilized and dispatched. The entire rim of the Mediterranean Sea was now Roman, with Roman warships controlling the waterways. The empire extended north to the English Channel and west to the River Rhine. From the Rhine, the imperial boundaries made a sharp right-hand turn to the Danube and then to the Black Sea.
This was a truly enormous amount of land to govern and defend, but it was possible just so long as the emperors attended to business and the legions responded to trouble areas. There would be times, however, when the emperors were completely off the job—or out to lunch—and when the governors of the various provinces had to handle things themselves.
Why do we call them “heirs” rather than “descendants”?
Augustus had several children by his two marriages, but none of his sons survived. The throne, therefore, passed to his stepson, Tiberius, who was the first man to call himself emperor. In his youth, Tiberius had been an active and courageous military leader, fighting the German tribes, but in late middle age he was weary. He paid little attention either to military or political affairs, and imperial governance suffered accordingly. It is worth noting, however, that the military situation stayed very much in control and that there were few, if any, revolts during Tiberius’ reign.
One of the few civil disturbances was a minor matter in the Province of Judaea. Rome had been in Judaea—which equates to modern-day Israel—for almost a century, but it was during Tiberius’ reign that many Jews expressed their discontent. Some gathered together behind a popular preacher named Jesus of Nazareth, and the Roman authorities found the situation dangerous enough that they had Jesus crucified. This event seemed insignificant at the time, but it led to the birth of a whole new religion, and the Christians—or “Christ followers”—would provide the Roman Empire with many headaches.
Who was truly the worst of all Roman emperors?
Beyond doubt this was Caligula (ruled 37–41 C.E.). Named by Tiberius shortly before his death, Caligula was about thirty-two when he became emperor. A psycho pathic individual with a heart that seemed incapable of empathy, Caligula may have suffered brain damage in youth; then again, he may simply have never experienced true human kindness. In either case, he was a terrible emperor, tending entirely to his own caprice and whim, bending all the rules in order to create pleasure or amusement. Surely one of the greatest set of laughs—as well as sighs—came when Caligula brought his favorite horse into the Roman Senate and nominated it for consul (high executive) for the coming year.
Emperor Caligula is regarded by many historians as the worst ruler of Rome, abusing his power to extremes that would have been considered absurd had they not been matched by his cold-hearted ruthlessness.
Again, it is worth noting that the external boundaries of the empire did not suffer during Caligula’s reign. The imperial system was young and fresh, and there were many highly skilled and devoted leaders of the Roman provinces as well as the legions. As a result, the empire seemed to do quite well during Caligula’s depraved rule, but had he lived another decade, things might have broken down. As it was, everyone expressed relief when Caligula was killed by a member of the Praetorian Guard and the throne passed to his uncle, Claudius.
Who conquered Britain and made it Roman?
The Emperor Claudius (reigned 41–54 B.C.E.) came to the throne at the age of sixty, but he knew it was necessary to establish a military reputation; no emperor could call his reign complete if he lacked a major conquest. Claudius, therefore, led the invasion of Britain that commenced around the year 60 B.C.E.
The Britons fought just as fiercely as their great-grandparents had in the time of Julius Caesar, but the Roman military was now so formidable that it could prevail even when not led by a military genius. Claudius was a bit of a plodder, so far as military matters went, but he engineered the crossing of the Channel and watched as his generals won the battles on British (or English) soil. By about 63 C.E., the conquest of lower England was complete.
What was the Praetorian Guard?
Established during the reign of Augustus, the Guard was a special legion unto itself, composed of about 4,000 highly skilled soldiers. Augustus created it as the imperial bodyguard, but he did not foresee the many troubles it would later cause. The assassination of Caligula was the first of many instances when the Guard took matters into its own hands and its leaders believed that they had to preserve the imperial dignity: without an emperor, they had no jobs.
Which one emperor nearly brought down the imperial system?
The Emperor Nero (ruled 54–68 C.E.) was almost as great a disaster as the Emperor Caligula. During his short time on the throne, Nero focused all his attention to affairs in Italy and Greece—including entering himself in the chariot races of the Olympic Games—and far too little on the external parts of the empire.
No major threat from outside the empire emerged; rather, it was the threat posed by ambitious generals from within. Since the death of Augustus, they had never seen a truly effective emperor, and Nero was so weak—and personally conflicted—that it seemed a god-sent opportunity for revolt. When Nero died by his own hand in 69 C.E., a series of revolts and counter-revolts were set off, with the potential to destroy the center of the empire.
How did the Romans found a new dynasty?
All of Augustus’ relatives—collateral or direct—were now deceased, and a struggle for the Roman throne ensued between prominent Roman noblemen. Whoever commanded or had the allegiance of the Praetorian Guard had a major advantage in this power struggle, which resulted in no fewer than four emperors over the period of eighteen months. Nero was followed by Galba, who was overcome by Otho, who lost to Vitellius, who was then overthrown by Vespasian. Things finally began to settle down when Vespasian won battles in Italy and ascended the throne. He had no special mandate or familial connection to Augustus, but the people of Rome were desperate for peace and they soon settled down under Vespasian’s rule.
Were life and death as intricately connected in the Coliseum as we suppose?
It was a place of tremendous danger for those who provided entertainment for the imperial elite. When the Coliseum opened in the year 80 C.E., the event was commemorated by festivities that resulted in the death of 5,000 animals, many of them from North Africa. This was but the beginning, however, of the Coliseum’s long rule as the place for blood, death, and imperial circuses.
What did the Mediterranean world look like between about 100 and 160 C.E.?
Many historians have followed the lead of Edward Gibbon—author of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire—in declaring that this half century was the most prosperous and secure period of recorded Roman history. In some ways this is true: there were no major wars in this period. The Roman legions were so powerful that any revolts were quickly stamped out. One can, however, discover the roots of future weakness even in this time of great success.
By 160 C.E., the legions were mostly composed of non-Italians; very few natives of the Italian soil wished to serve in the provinces. The leaders of those legions, too, were increasingly foreign. This was not a terrible thing, but Roman patriotism—based on allegiance to the city-state and Italian peninsula—began to wither and was replaced by a much broader loyalty to the empire as a whole, represented by the emperor. As long as the emperor was a good and practical leader, the legions would accomplish their tasks; if he was a weakling, things could go downhill quite rapidly. As it turned out, there was to be one more truly great emperor, followed by a long series of mediocre or poor ones.
How do we know so much about the Emperor Marcus Aurelius?
We know a great deal, both from what was written about him at the time and because he was a true philosopher-emperor who composed the Meditations. A lesser known fact, however, is that Aurelius—who was a secondary character in the 2000 film Gladiator—was a true warrior-emperor. From the start of his reign, the empire was attacked on its eastern and northeastern frontiers. The Parthians attacked Syria while various Germanic tribes attacked in the Danube River Basin.
Aurelius spent most of the last ten years of his reign in the Danube Basin, responding to one crisis after another. On one occasion, in a battle against the Quadi tribe, he was nearly defeated, but a thunderstorm—which all observers treated as a miracle—rescued his parched men, who rebounded to win the day. By the time of Aurelius’ death in 180 C.E., the empire was largely victorious, but it required the constant attention of a vigorous emperor.
By the time Marcus Aurelius became emperor of Rome in the second century C.E., the empire was struggling to defend its borders in the east and north.
When did the decline of Rome really become apparent?
The reign of the Emperor Commodus (180–193) was bad enough in that Commodus was far more interested in gladiatorial events than anything to do with real military matters, but things only became worse with the turn of the century. One emperor after another deposed his predecessor, usually with the help of the Praetorian Guard, and none of them were men of great ability. There was a very surprising period of seven months when the empire was ruled by a man whose father had been a slave—this was a true anomaly—but this entire time was marked, in general, by mediocre leaders and an increasing sense of hopelessness.
THE MID-CENTURY CRISIS
Was there any time prior to the fifth century when Rome could have collapsed?
Yes. In the middle part of the third century, both the city of Rome and the empire showed severe signs of strain. Perhaps the worst moment was when the Roman Emperor Valerian (ruled 250–260) was captured by Shapur, king of the Sassanid dynasty in Iran. The event was commemorated in a number of sculptures and monuments in Iran (some of them exist today), and the shame felt by the Roman public was very great.
The Sassanids were a formidable foe, but they could never have threatened the integrity of the Roman Empire on their own; it was the simultaneous attack of tribal peoples along the vulnerable Danube River frontier that really accelerated the danger. Even then, had Rome in 260 been the Rome of two centuries earlier, it could have responded to all threats. As it was, currency devaluation combined with a weakness in the legions led to conditions that made a general collapse possible.
How did Rome make it through the crisis of the third century?
Neither the Sassanids nor the northern tribal peoples pushed their advantage strongly enough, and by about 275 Rome had steadied herself. A new emperor, Aurelian, was the first to appreciate that the city of Rome needed new defenses, and the Aurelian Wall was completed by 280. Other Italian cities were fortified, and by about 290 the empire had taken on a stronger, though highly defensive, look.
Then, too, a new emperor, Dicoletian, set a new set of rules and regulations. To us today, they seem extreme, as when he decreed that men must practice the trade of their fathers and that men and women must live in the towns of their birth. But to an empire that was on the verge of disintegration, these reforms made sense. Dicoletian, too, was the first emperor to acknowledge that the empire was too large for one person to manage; during his reign, there were two Augustuses and two Caesars, making for a total of four men who ruled.
Which is the correct name: Byzantium, Constantinople, or Istanbul?
In truth, they are all correct. Originally a small Greek fishing village on the west side of the Bosporus, the city became known as Constantinople after Constantine settled there; following its capture by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, it became known as Istanbul. All three names refer to the same place: one of the most beautiful and strategic places in the world.
Constantine decided to settle in the Greek fishing village because of its great strategic location. Even though the area had witnessed warfare all the way back to the Greeks and Persians, no one had ever fortified the area on the left, or west, side of the Bosporus. Constantine erected the first set of walls, which soon had to be knocked down and replaced, as the population grew.
What else was distinctive about Rome at the beginning of the fourth century?
Many people, including Diocletian, recognized that the city of Rome was no longer the heart of the Roman Empire. People still spoke of Rome with veneration, but the major public business had languished and quite a few merchants had picked up and moved. Dicoletian spent little time in Rome, but it was left to his successor to make the true break and establish a new imperial capital.
The Column of Constantine was erected in 330 C.E. when the name of the city was changed from Byzantium to Constantinople, the new heart of the Roman Empire.
Constantine I (ruled 306–337) emerged from a four-way contest to become the new emperor. Born in Britain, he was the son of a pagan father and a Christian mother, and he carried that tension throughout life. We have no doubt that he won the Battle of the Milvan Bridge (in 306) and that his men carried some Christian symbols into that battle; whether he actually dreamed that “In this sign shall you conquer” is another matter. Constantine did become the new leader, however, and he declared that there had to be a second capital.
How soon did Constantinople rival Rome?
Constantine took a fishing village of 800 inhabitants and turned it into a city of 50,000 people. A century later, there may have been as many as a quarter million people in Constantinople, and the number just continued to rise. There were people, however, who insisted that Rome would always be the center of the Roman Empire, and the contest between the two cities lasted for many years. The single most important advantage enjoyed by Constantinople was that the emperors—almost to a man—preferred to live there or at Ravenna, a city on the northeast Italian coast, rather than Rome.
Constantine was not—to the best of our knowledge—a likeable or admirable person, but few of the Roman emperors were. What matters is that he gave new life to an empire which had almost died and that his efforts prolonged its life for another 150 years in the western section and almost 1,000 years in the eastern.
BARBARIAN TRIBES AND THE FALL OF ROME
Doesn’t everyone come from a distant place at some point in their development?
Yes. It is only in retrospect that some people can call themselves “civilized” and others “barbarians.” If you trace the history of almost any people on earth far enough, you will eventually discover a time when they were the wild men, the outlanders, or the barbarians. For example, the French and Germans, who are considered among the most civilized of today’s peoples, were wandering tribal peoples at the time when the Roman Empire fell. Similarly, the proud Manchu rulers of China, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, had previously been among the far-farers on the outside of the Wall of China. There is something especially “wild” about the centuries that followed the fall of Rome, however, a time when the barbarians outnumbered civilized peoples by a large margin.
Who were the first of the “wild people from far off”?
Although the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Burgundians can all lay a claim, the first truly wild folk to emerge were the Huns, who came to northeastern Europe in the first decades of the fifth century C.E. Very little is known about the early Huns, other than the fact that they were a Central Asian people who migrated westward, most likely in search of better pastures for their animals.
As soon as they arrived in the Danube Basin, the Huns sowed panic among the other tribal peoples of that region. Whether it was actual warfare or just rumors of conflict, the Huns seemed so fierce that the Ostrogoths practically begged the Roman Empire for protection. Quite a few Ostrogoths even entered the empire, with some joining the faltering legions. But the Huns became truly terrifying following the rise of Attila.
Who was Attila, and how did he become so powerful?
He was one of the two primary sons of the chief of the Huns, and he fought a long, protracted conflict with his brother to become “King.” Once he did so, however, Attila truly lived up to that title. He led the Huns in increasingly ambitious and daring raids, even threatening the city of Constantinople. Attila did not really wish to conquer the Byzantine capital; it was far more profitable to extract tribute from the Byzantines.
By 440 C.E., Attila had turned his attention to the Western Roman Empire. The farther he drove into its confines, the more weakness he detected. Attila was not as successful in extracting tribute from Rome, but he possessed excellent intelligence about the city and its people. He was even in contact with General Aeitius, who had been a hostage among the Huns during his youth.
Could Attila have captured Rome, and if so, would that have been the summit of his ambition?
Very likely, Attila would have been disappointed because Rome, in 450, was not what it had been a century or two before. Then, too, he had lost the chance of being the “first” man to sack Rome: that distinction went to Alaric, who led his Goths there in 410. But even when we put in these qualifiers, we know that Attila wished to conquer Rome. In 451, he led a large army of Huns due west, to central France, in what may be viewed as preparation for his assault on Rome. His plans were detected, however, and Aeitius brought a Roman-Germanic-Frankish army to challenge the Huns.
The Battle of Charlons-sur-Marne, fought in the summer of 451, may be one of the most decisive of the entire Middle Ages. It was not a spectacular victory for the Romans and their allies, but they fought the Huns to a draw, and Attila withdrew from the area. Given that the entire Western Roman Empire could have collapsed, the battle is regarded as a decisive victory even though it was fought from a defensive position.
Did Attila try again?
Yes. He returned in 453 C.E., crossed the Alps, and marched across northern Italy with frightening ease. Not until he was within one hundred miles of Rome was there any significant resistance, and it came—in this instance—not from military men but the papacy. Pope Gregory the Great left Rome with a tiny bodyguard, and upon arriving at the Huns’ camp asked to see Attila. The two men spent several hours in Attila’s tent, and soon after the Pope departed, the Huns began to break camp. Clearly, the Pope had said something of great importance.
No one knows what words were spoken, but we suspect that the Pope threatened Attila, saying that the Christian God was more powerful than the pagan ones and that the Huns would all contract a disease if they remained in Italy. There was a virulent pestilence at the time, and Attila may have feared it more than anything else, but according to Catholic tradition, the Pope saved Rome.
What happened to Attila and the Huns?
Attila died a year later, on the evening of his wedding to a Bulgarian princess. Soon after his death, the Huns began breaking up, evidence of the fact that their clannish and tribal ties were not as powerful as one thought. A generation later, it was hard to find anyone that called himself a Hun.
Was that the end of the barbarian migrations?
By no means. The Vandals had just gotten started on a remarkable odyssey that would take them to North Africa, and the Franks, Lombards, and Burgundians were still on the move. All of these tribes were headed toward settling down, but there was still some wildness within them.
Each of these tribes, and quite a few others in Western Europe, were on the verge of the greatest challenge they had ever met. Time and again, they had defeated their enemies in battle, but they had never come against a force as powerful as the Christian missionaries. Over the next one hundred years—between 450 and 550 C.E.—many of the barbarian peoples became Christians, thanks to the efforts of some truly dedicated and heroic monks and priests.
What was the high point for the Byzantines?
The Byzantines—who called themselves Romans—hit their high point sometime in the sixth century C.E. This was partly due to a rigid social and political system that allowed the military leaders to establish stronger armies than any seen in the previous three centuries.
The Emperor Justinian and his wife, the Empress Theodora, presided over the Byzantine Empire at the time of its greatest strength. Not only did they beautify Constantinople, building the famous Hagia Sophia, but they commissioned General Belisarius to reconquer large parts of the Western Roman Empire. During the 530s and 540s, Belisarius conquered parts of North Africa, all of Sicily, and parts of Italy. He did not attempt to reestablish a Roman presence in Rome, however; he, like everyone else, believed the city was too far gone. The fruit of Belisarius’ campaigns can, therefore, be seen in the magnificent Byzantine churches in northern Italy, especially the city of Ravenna.
Did the Byzantines hang on to what they had won?
Not for long. The pressure from the barbarian groups, who, by this time, can be considered semicivilized, was too strong. By 600 C.E., the Byzantines had lost nearly everything they had gained in the central and western Mediterranean. Part of the reason is that they were distracted by a newly resurgent Persian Empire.
Once a Greek Orthodox church and later a mosque and museum, the Hagia Sophia in present-day Istanbul, Turkey, was built at the height of the Byzantine Empire as part of Emperor Justinian’s efforts to beautify Constantinople.
How many times did the peoples of Iran and Iraq change their names?
So many times that one can spend hours trying to puzzle them out. Originally, the people in present-day Iran were known as Persians, but during the third century C.E., following a dynastic change, they came to be known as the Parthians. Later they became known as the Sassanids, another dynasty, and still later they reverted back to being Persians. During all these centuries and dynasties, one thing remained fairly constant: the Persians, Parthians, Sassanids, and others were aggressive and eager to combat the Byzantines.
Which Byzantine emperor pushed the Persians right to the brink?
The Emperor Heraclius (reigned about 600) fought the Persians relentlessly, driving them from Asia Minor and large parts of the Middle East. During his reign, the Byzantines gained definitive control of the city of Jerusalem and claimed to be defenders of the faith (this was, of course, disputed by the popes in the West). But just as he neared complete victory, Heraclius realized that his empire was overextended. He began a withdrawal that seemed like an excellent strategic move. Heraclius and his successors did not envision the new danger that was about to appear, however.
How important is the life of the Prophet Mohammed?
To those who believe he was the final prophet, Mohammed is the single most important person of human history. But even those who do not recognize Mohammed acknowledge him as one of the great change agents of the first millennium, whose impact lasted well into the third. Mohammed started a new monotheistic religion, with the faithful expressing their belief with a brief but poignant saying: “There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his Messenger.”
One can dispute aspects and parts of the Prophet’s teachings, but when it comes to war, there can be no mistake. Mohammed stands out among all the great religious figures as the one leader who believed force was sometimes necessary to accomplish the will of heaven. To be sure, some of his beliefs have been exaggerated or distorted by his followers, but the popular image of Mohammed holding the Koran in one hand and a curved sword in the other is not inaccurate.
To this point in military history—about 630—the Arabian Peninsula had not figured largely in the events or campaigns of any of the major powers. The Arabs, who numbered perhaps one million, were a people standing on the outskirts of history. No one—Byzantine, Persian, or Roman—expected them to make the sudden, swift appearance that occured in the 640s.
When did the Arabs leave their peninsula?
The Prophet Mohammed died in 632, and Arab military moves began within a handful of years following his death. No one person—civilian or military—lays claim as the leader of the Arab explosion; this is perhaps because Muslim writers wish to give all the credit to the Prophet. He had certainly established the path by creating a new religion, but even he would have been astonished at the speed and success of the Arab conquests.
Within ten years of the Prophet’s death, the Arabs had conquered Jerusalem and were on their way to taking Damascus and Cairo. Baghdad and the Libyan Desert were conquered next, followed by Arab movements into Spain and Central Asia. There were times, quite likely, when their opponents cursed and raved about the Arabs. How could a rather primitive people, equipped only with camels and horses, beat so many other peoples and advance so far?
Who led the way for the Arabs?
During his lifetime ‘Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, was the leader of most of the Arab forces. By the time the Arabs fought the Byzantines and the Persians, however, they were on the verge of the great split that remains today: that between Sunni and Shi’ite.
Those who claimed that the leader of the Arabs must be connected by blood to the Prophet followed ‘Ali, and his name remains, in that Shi’ite means “follower of ‘Ali.” Those who claimed that majority ruled and whoever was designated by the majority would serve as the caliph became known as Sunnis, meaning majority. By the time ‘Ali died in 664 the split was apparent, but the Arabs kept on winning battles and wars.
What was the farthest westward extent of Arab conquest?
In 711, the Muslim leader al-Tariq led a group of Arabs and Berbers across what the Greeks called the Pillars of Hercules and what we know as the Strait of Gibraltar. Little known is the fact that the very word Gibraltar comes from Arabic: it is a corruption of Tariq’s Rock.
The Muslims soon occupied the southern two-thirds of Spain. They seemed destined to take over much of Western Europe, but they suffered a defeat at the hands of the Frankish cavalry at the Battle of Tours in 732. The defeat was not large, by Arab standards, but it prevented any further crossings of the Pyrenees, which became the unofficial division between Muslim and Christian Europe.
Charles Martel, king of the Franks, defended Europe from the further advance of the Muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732 (painting by Charles de Steuben, c. 1835).
What was the farthest eastward extent of Arab conquest?
In 751, an Arab army clashed with a Chinese one at the Battle of Talas, in Central Asia. This battle was a standoff, but, like Tours, it was enough to stop the Arab momentum. No one can minimize the terrific extent of the Arab conquests, though; in the century that followed the Prophet’s death, the Arabs took over ninety percent of all the urban centers in the Western world, and their conquests equaled those of ancient Rome.
Why is Charlemagne’s name still so well known today?
He lived in a time—the eighth century—when the population of Europe was much smaller than today, and he lived such a dramatic and full life that he is one of the few Europeans from that time we know much about. In addition, no fewer than five countries—France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Luxembourg—claim him as their founding father. Even more significant, many people around the world today like to claim they are descended from Charlemagne.
While we are on the subject of genetics, it is worth pointing out that if one traces his or her lineage a long way, he often finds that he is related—in one way or another—to almost all the people who were alive at any given time. Roughly fifty generations separate our time from that of Charlemagne, and if we really have as many ancestors as mathematics suggests, then we would be right to claim descent from him, but also from the fellow who held his horse!
What advantages did Charlemagne have in his early life?
He was one of the two sons of the king of the Franks, and given that his elder brother was a halfwit, it was obvious that Charlemagne would inherit the throne. He did corule with his brother, Carloman, for a time, but he deposed him and established his own one-man rule.
How do we know so much about Charlemagne’s appearance?
O ne of the scholars at his court—in present-day Holland—wrote a biography, and when Charlemagne’s bones were exhumed in 1862, they confirmed many things which had been written. We know, for example, that Charlemagne was about six foot two, very impressive for that time, and that he suffered a number of wounds over the years. Whether he actually spoke in a high, light voice is impossible to say.
Charlemagne—whose name means “Charles the Great”—was obsessed with the idea of rebuilding Rome, rebuilding what the Roman Empire had once been. He was not the only person to have this vision, but he was, perhaps, the person equipped with more tools than anyone else. Even so, he knew many years of struggle.
How many campaigns did Charlemagne undertake?
In the neighborhood of forty. He typically spent the winter and spring at his capital city of Aachen and campaigned in the summer and fall. Charlemagne was an ardent Christian who wished to convert all the peoples of Europe, and he certainly was willing to employ the sword to do so.
Charlemagne fought the Saxons—from whom many today derive the ethnic name of Anglo-Saxons—in north-central Germany for many years. Upon finally defeating them, he looked further to the east and commenced a series of campaigns against the Avars, a tribe of Central Asia nomads who had moved into what are now Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Tradition has it that when Charlemagne finally defeated the Avars, he came away with wagonloads of gold, which were used to finance the cultural changes he had underway at Aachen.
Did Charlemagne fail in any of his campaigns?
Only once. In 778, he invaded Muslim Spain and besieged the towns which are now the major cities of Barcelona and Pamplona. Thwarted in his attempts, Charlemagne headed for home and to his chagrin, the Basque tribesmen of northern Spain—who were fellow Christians—ambushed his rear guard. Count Roland, one of Charlemagne’s most dedicated knights, was killed in the battle. For centuries afterward, French children were raised on stories of Roland’s bravery in the same manner as English children who delighted in tales of King Arthur.
What was the highest point of Charlemagne’s long reign?
Having fought the Lombards and thereby made life easier for Pope Leo III, Charlemagne wished to cement his alliance with the papacy. In the autumn of 800, Charlemagne and several thousand of his countrymen journeyed south and crossed the Alps (this was one of the few times they were not traveling to a military destination). Arriving in Rome, Charlemagne made his last backstage deals, and on Christmas Day, Pope Leo crowned him emperor of the Romans in full view of thousands of people.
Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, unified much of Europe in an attempt to restore some of the former glory of Rome. In 800 he was crowned emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo.
This was obviously a great moment for Charlemagne: it proved the cap or crowning moment of his long career. But it was also a major step forward for the Northern European peoples. Three hundred years had passed since Rome fell, and during most of that time, there had been little hope for a recovery. Charlemagne’s coronation meant that the Pope and the king of the Franks were now political and military allies and that they intended to rebuild the glory of Rome, no matter how long it might take.
